The one who has dropped the most, Trump, may be headed to a brokered convention because he has fallen under 100%, and there are dozens of theories about how that may play out. Clinton has dropped 7% but FiveThirtyEight considers her a lock; Sanders, who has dropped only 1%, is now presented as mathematically eliminated:

… a night that wasn’t quite as bad as it seems wasn’t what Sanders needed. Even a pretty good night wouldn’t have mattered for him all that much. Instead, he needed a stupendous night that redefined the campaign. Big wins in Missouri, Illinois or Ohio might have done that; so might have making Clinton sweat in North Carolina or Florida. Sanders didn’t come close to passing that admittedly high bar.

I have to admit to being discouraged by Clinton’s sweep on the Ides of March, but Sanders is not mathematically done yet. He does have to do very well in his best states, which are coming up. We will see.

In place of a Sanders ticket, some have talked about writing him in, and one of my friends is voting for Jill Stein. One of my very sick friends was planning on Trump as a second choice because only he and Sanders were open to legalizing the medical marijuana he needs, but he may reconsider. I suspect a lot of younger voters will just stay home.

CNN says Bernie Sanders is not a loser and that he has made Clinton a better candidate. Likewise, Clinton supporters are all smiles, saying that it is time for Democrats to come together to defeat the Trump menace. But Counterpunch reminds us that the Clintons are still neoliberals.

Who set the stage for Trump? Was it really just Republican dogwhistle politics? No, the primary engine of Trump’s and Sanders’ base was the neoconservative’s and neoliberal’s economic savaging of the working class to create a comfortable nest for elites on both sides of the aisle. How can neoliberals exhort us to defeat Trump when their very policies will be creating the next populist strongman – perhaps one for each party?